Calcutta High Court Declines Interim Protection In ‘PL SUPREME’ Torch Trademark Battle

Calcutta High Court Declines Interim Protection In ‘PL SUPREME’ Torch Trademark Battle

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court has declined to grant interim injunctive relief to a Kolkata-based importer in a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute concerning the mark “PL SUPREME”, holding that the Chinese manufacturer was the prior adopter and owner of the mark. The Court found that the Indian importer failed to establish independent goodwill or a superior proprietary right that would justify interim protection.

The judgment was delivered on December 5, 2025, by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, who emphasised that trademark rights ordinarily vest in the manufacturer who originates and affixes the mark, particularly where the importer merely resells the goods.

Factual Background

The dispute arose between Parul Ruparelia and an associated entity, based in Kolkata, and Camme Wang, a Chinese manufacturer of torches and its related entity. The Indian plaintiffs claimed to have been importing torches and spare parts from the Chinese manufacturer since 2006 and asserted that they coined the mark “SUPREME” in 2006 and later “PL SUPREME” in 2013.

Relying on a trademark registration obtained in India in 2019 for “PL SUPREME,” the plaintiffs alleged infringement and passing off by the Chinese manufacturer and sought interim injunction restraining manufacture, export, and sale of goods bearing the mark.

The Chinese manufacturer disputed these claims, contending that it had conceived and adopted the mark “PL SUPREME” in China in 2009, obtained registration there in 2014, and had been exporting torches bearing the mark to various countries, including India, since 2010. It was further asserted that “PL” was derived from “Polar Lights,” the English translation of the manufacturer’s Chinese name, while “SUPREME” denoted product quality.

Procedural Background

The plaintiffs instituted a trademark infringement and passing-off suit before the Calcutta High Court and sought interim relief restraining the defendants from using the mark “PL SUPREME.” Certain consignments were earlier seized pursuant to interim directions passed in the proceedings.

The defendants opposed the grant of interim relief and sought vacation of all interim orders, including return of the seized goods.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie proprietary right in the trademark “PL SUPREME” warranting interim protection.

2. Whether the Chinese manufacturer was the prior adopter and owner of the mark “PL SUPREME.”

3. Whether the balance of convenience and equities favoured grant of interim injunction to the plaintiffs.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiffs contended that they had been importing torches from the Chinese entity since 2006 and had independently conceived the mark “PL SUPREME” in 2013. They argued that their Indian trademark registration granted them statutory rights entitling them to interim relief against infringement and passing off.

The defendants, on the other hand, asserted prior adoption and continuous use of the mark since 2009. They produced documentary evidence, including invoices and export records, to demonstrate that goods bearing the “PL SUPREME” mark had been supplied to the Indian plaintiffs themselves well before 2013. The defendants further submitted that substantial dues exceeding ₹7 crore remained unpaid for earlier consignments.

The defendants also alleged suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the true nature of the seized consignments, which were in fact the plaintiffs’ own orders placed with the Chinese manufacturer.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found the plaintiffs’ explanation regarding the conception and adoption of the marks “SUPREME” and “PL SUPREME” to be unconvincing and unsupported by credible evidence. It noted that documentary material clearly demonstrated that the plaintiffs had been purchasing torches bearing the “PL SUPREME” mark from the Chinese manufacturer even prior to their claimed date of adoption.

Relying on settled principles of trademark law, the Court reiterated that trademark ownership ordinarily vests in the manufacturer who originates the mark and affixes it to the goods. An importer or distributor cannot claim proprietorship merely by reselling the goods unless it is shown that consumers associate the mark exclusively with the importer.

The Court observed that the plaintiffs failed to establish any independent goodwill in the mark “PL SUPREME” distinct from that of the Chinese manufacturer. It further held that the plaintiffs’ conduct in suppressing material facts disentitled them from equitable relief, noting that a party seeking interim injunction must approach the Court with clean hands.

In view of the superior rights established by the Chinese manufacturer, the Court held that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience was found to be against the grant of injunction, and no irreparable harm was shown to justify interim protection.

Decision

The Calcutta High Court refused to grant interim injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, vacated all earlier interim orders, and directed that the seized goods be returned to the Chinese manufacturer. The Court held that the defendants had demonstrated prior adoption and superior rights in the trademark “PL SUPREME,” thereby disentitling the plaintiffs from any interim protection.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Mr. Victor Dutta, Mr. Dhruv Chadha, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ishaan Saha, Mr. Abbas Ibrahim Khan and Ms. Meena Shabnam, Advocates.